Maybe the people who really are are listening are those who want to see how demonstrations, strikes and protests are received by the government, which they seem to see as an ever flowing fount of money. When the government gives in to the truckers, their paymasters, the TU, will be there in force…..

One aspect of the motoring tax-grab which causes me great concern is the lack of clarity over its purpose. I address this point to you because I have witnessed you to be a politician who states both the perceived benefits and potential detriments of his policy statements.

Both the Labour and Conservative Parties have sought to justify increases in motoring taxes by saying that it is appropriate to impose a higher burden because driving a motor vehicle causes pollution (the fuel-duty escalator introduced by a Conservative government being a classic example).

But it is never explained whether, and if so how, this is intended to change behaviour. The same observation applies to all so-called “green” taxes.

To be fair to the current Prime Minister one must acknowledge that his only clear policy initiative to date (namely his stated desire to see a massive reduction in the use of plastic carrier bags) included an unequivocal assertion that the cost of bags should become prohibitive so as to limit the number produced.

If the purpose is to use the tax system to make a significant change to behaviour there should be a clear statement of policy to this effect, including a description of the change which is being sought.

A stated policy to impose tax at rates designed to discourage the ownership and use of motor cars with engines above a certain size might or might not find favour with the voters, but at least we would know where we stand.

Similarly with a stated policy to impose tax at rates designed to make flying so expensive that the number of flights into and out of the UK is reduced by a given percentage.

But as things stand I do not know whether the government wants me to continue driving an average of 1,500 miles a year in my large and comfortable car but to pay more for the privilege, or to sell my car and drive the same 1,500 miles in a small car and pay less in tax.

Nor do I know whether the government wants to reduce the number of flights although I suspect it does not because those who are most likely to be priced out of air travel would exact a furious revenge through the ballot box.

One feels compelled to conclude that the purpose of these taxes is simply to raise additional revenue rather than to change behaviour because there is no sign of a Plan B to be implemented once the higher rates of VED are not paid by anyone, the increased use of more fuel-efficient cars reduces the tax paid in fuel duty and those on lower incomes are priced out of their hard-earned once a year foreign holiday.

If your party is to present any avowedly “green” tax policies at the next election, please do everything you can to ensure that any intended change in behaviour is defined clearly.

The country is tired of hidden agendas, a big fat dose of honesty would go down a storm.

Reply: I agree

The British government cannot even bring in a law requiring left hand drive foreign lorries to have blind spot mirrors, because this is an EU ‘competence’. Hence the carnage these barely trained and incompetent truckers cause on our roads is set to continue.

Haulage firms need a fuel duty rebate of 20p a litre , the 2p hike should go & road fuel duties should get a 12p a litre reduction . The 2p hike being axed & the duty cut can be funded from the VAT windfall owing to the higher oil price . The haulage firm refund can be met I think by cutting the ever pointless New Deal that has wasted funds while economic inactivity rockets . Falling transport costs might help get inflation down without higher interest rates thus helping the UK back to prosperity by keeping the food & morgages from getting any dearer . Don’t forget lower taxes + smaller government = Eire style prosperity !

Higher taxes have not curbed emmissions or congestion related problems . The client state is funded by a lie – motorists pay for their carbon footprint many times over while these green taxes are not really green as they have not helped the environment . Rather they raise money in a regressive & inflationary manner – I thought that Labour wanted fair taxes and lower inflation ? Adding to transport costs when people struggle to meet the bills to help fund £100 billion a year in QUANGO’s that are undemocratic & wasteful is just wrong pure & simple . If Denis MacShane wants cuts in public sector waste & taxes might I suggest motoring tax cuts in response to the SOS from Labour MP’s in rural marginal seats ? They have to hold those to give Gordon Brown a majority in 2010 – so for Labour it is either embracing John Redwood’s economic wisdom or ceasing to be both a government and an effective political force ! As Denis MacShane said in his Daily Telegraph article : ‘ Watch this space ! ‘

-=-=-

p.s. just finished re-reading my signed copy of “Popular Capitalism” – Just as true today as it was when it was written.